Football clubs often "sail close to the wind" as they strive for that competitive edge in an AFL competition which is regulated to make all teams equal. Pushing the boundaries of sports science is not a new concept, but Essendon seems to have taken it to a new and more sophisticated level, writes Nick Holland.

"Whatever it takes" is the Essendon Football Clubs membership slogan for 2013. An unfortunate catch cry for a club that finds itself in the middle of an AFL and Australian Sports Anti-Doping Association (ASADA) investigation over whether or not members of the Essendon team engaged in the systematic use of banned substances.

Although the investigation is shocking news, the possibility that an AFL club could accidentally or intentionally cross the line and breach the AFL anti-doping code is not that remote.

In fact football clubs often "sail close to the wind" as they strive for that competitive edge in an AFL competition which is regulated to make all teams equal.

The AFL prides itself on having an even competition. The salary cap and draft system promotes parity between teams and puts a control on costs. Capping player payments prevents wealthy teams from going out and buying success. While the salary cap and draft has resulted in a great competitive balance, it has also left the wealthier clubs questioning how best to use their resources to achieve premiership success.

Initially the wealthy clubs sought out loopholes in the salary cap rules as a way to gain an advantage over their rivals. Players were paid money outside the cap for marketing appearances and players' family members were employed by clubs to divert payments away from the 'cap'. In order to preserve the equality of the competition the AFL introduced new regulations to control these types of payments. Further, clubs that did breach the salary cap were heavily sanctioned for the breach. The actions of the AFL appear to have provided the necessary deterrent for clubs looking to push the salary cap beyond its limit and have maintained the evenness of the competition.

As a result of the tightening of the regulations governing the salary cap, AFL clubs have turned towards sports science as the new frontier whereby they may gain a competitive advantage.

Pushing the boundaries of sports science is not a new concept. In the 80s Hawthorn players inhaled a 'secret substance' to open their airways. The substance turned out to be eucalyptus oil. In the 90s players took muscle-building supplements. The 1996-97 Adelaide Crows premiership teams accounted part of their success to the ingestion of colostrum, a bi-product of mothers' milk. Brisbane's triple premiership side inserted intravenous drips into the players at half time of the game, a practice now outlawed by the AFL. In more recent times there has been the debate over the banning of caffeine because players have been using up to the prescribed limit of the stimulant on game day. There has been a noticeable trend by clubs to increase the focus on sports science in order to obtain the winning edge.

The Bombers seem to have taken sports science to a new and more sophisticated level through the appointment of sport scientist Stephen Dank who is known as the 'Pharmacist'. Dank was brought into the club in 2012 to help boost the players' performance but seems to have employed his methods in an unregulated way.

AFL boss Andrew Demetriou has always been cautious of the influence that the strength and conditioning team can have on the football department at AFL clubs. He identified correctly that sports science is not subject to the same checks and balances as the medical profession and brought in a rule in the last CBA that any decision regarding the treatment of players must ultimately be signed off by the club medical officer. Rather prophetically Demetriou emphasised the importance of this rule to AFL clubs representatives at a recent conference.

Although Essendon club chairman David Evans said that he believed that the Bombers had done everything to be compliant with the rules and regulations of the AFL and ASADA, it seems that the football department may have let Dank's advice to the players go unchecked.

You would expect that if the players were in actual fact taking banned substances then one of the players would have recorded a positive drug test over the course of the season. Unfortunately there are many examples showing that testing is not foolproof. The faces of Evans, Hird and Robson at the press conference suggested the situation was not that simple. The clubs dismissal of Dank and the revelation of players signing a waiver form make the situation look all the more damning.

The situation becomes even more complex for the AFL if it is forced to impose sanctions on the players. The troublesome issue is that the AFL is likely to want to deliver harsh penalties as a deterrent to others. However the players appear to have been acting under their clubs direction. You would expect the AFLPA to vigorously defend any player who may find himself in this predicament and argue that it is the club that needs to be sanctioned.

The AFL holds the integrity of the game in utmost importance and no matter who it is that bears the brunt of any sanctions that may be imposed, you would expect that the AFL will do "whatever it takes" to preserve the sanctity of the game.

Nick Holland is a lawyer and former AFL player. He tweets @nickholland02. View his full profile here.

Free trade is the oldest argument in federal politics and the issue that literally defined the federation era but opposition exists to the TPP, courtesy of the Investor-State Dispute Resolutions clause.